Weekly Box Office & Film Discussion Thread

The problem with GB2 was that in between the first and second one, the cartoon series happened. It tried very hard not to be the cartoon series, yet it sorta turned into it somehow. It's a good movie, but I think too much of the plot is saddled with "Everyone broke up and we have to get the gang back together."

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I might be in the minority, but I liked Viggo as a villain better than Gozer. Gozer was never scary; she looked like she walked out of an '80s music video. But the whole idea of the Viggo painting used to terrify me as a kid, lol.

Plus I guess I kinda like the getting the gang back together character moments. I've always enjoyed that more than origin stories I suppose.

That's kinda the same problem with MIB2.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about; that movie never happened, lol.

And, like I said, the cartoon series had better concepts and took the original movie into canon

Click to expand...

It is always nice when cartoons series are allowed to achieve more than the original films. Certainly I've found that with the recent Star Wars cartoons.

You know, even though I have the ghostbusters 1/2 set, I don't think I've ever watched 2 to completion :/

Click to expand...

I'll admit I probably saw Ghostbusters 2 in the theater first so that makes me a tad bias, lol. It's like with the Muppets, I know TMM is the best film, but I'm just a bit fonder of MTM in part because I grew up with (and again it has less of the origin story burden).

I'll admit I probably saw Ghostbusters 2 in the theater first so that makes me a tad bias, lol. It's like with the Muppets, I know TMM is the best film, but I'm just a bit fonder of MTM in part because I grew up with (and again it has less of the origin story burden).

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying about the magic of cinema. That magic is being reduced to ipod screens without any pageantry. That said, the original Ghostbusters has no comparison. There's a reason why the initial film gains a 94% on the tomatometer and the sequel only gets a 51%. Still, that means nothing to a personal connection a viewer makes in the theater. In many ways GB2 was an unoriginal remake of the superior first film down to the "large creature" walking through the city. To each their own taste I guess. I just hope they make a GB3 to close the story nicely someday.

I also get what you're saying about origin stories. The new Spider-man reboots the franchise, but in a way that hits the ground running. I like that. It also opens up some avenues after Sam Raimi's take had unjustly squandered or painted things into a corner. The sky's the limit with the new Spidey. His underdog status is what drives the character. He doesn't need Bat-gadgets or an entourage.

Even though TMM is set up to be an origin story, GMC seems to be more of one to me. TMM is really just a road trip movie and those are fun. That's what makes it such a success. There's really not much exposition. They just meet, connect and come along for the ride. I prefer TMM because of all 7 films it really is the Muppets movie. GMC is the Miss Piggy movie, MTM is the Kermit & Miss Piggy movie, MCC and MTI are literature movies with the Muppets as supporting characters, MFS is the Gonzo movie and TM is an origin movie redux.

MTM is a fave of a lot of fans and I've been researching it a lot these days for inspiration. We'll see what comes of that.

I'll be honest, I might be in the minority, but I liked Viggo as a villain better than Gozer. Gozer was never scary; she looked like she walked out of an '80s music video. But the whole idea of the Viggo painting used to terrify me as a kid, lol.

Click to expand...

I can laugh about the concept of the first movie, especially since it was deemed suitable for a kid's cartoon series. But I agree that Viggo was a much more threatening villain.

I don't know if this is at all true, but Columbia pretty much just about forced them to make a second one after the success of the first movie and cartoon series. And they wound up pretty much remaking the first one, and a lot of the concepts that made the first one great were either thrown out or Xeroxed to a pale version of themselves.

I did like the sub-plot of Dana and Peter... but all and all, if they had more time and less pressure, we would've seen a brilliant sequel. It's good enough in itself, I like it, but it really needs something to it.

Plus I guess I kinda like the getting the gang back together character moments. I've always enjoyed that more than origin stories I suppose.

Click to expand...

I think they should have gone with a plot line that the Ghostbusters were still in business, but things were tight because there were less and less ghost sightings in the area. Like something where they were all together all along, but they were on the brink of closing down. And they could have kept the Birthday Party sequence in. That was great.

It is always nice when cartoons series are allowed to achieve more than the original films. Certainly I've found that with the recent Star Wars cartoons.

Click to expand...

I like cartoons based on movies, and while they are hit or miss, I find there are more hits than misses. I think The Mask was a pretty good cartoon series, I certainly enjoyed Rob Paulsen hamming it up more than Jim Carey (and that's the movie I think he was the best in). Real Ghostbusters was a very well done show, I think the title "Extreme Ghostbusters" was the only reason anyone hated the second series (It was very smartly written as well)... but when it comes to Men in Black, the cartoon series was one of the best action cartoons of the decade. And that was a decade of high quality action cartoons (Gargoyles, Batman TAS). And it had such deep continuity and concepts that wouldn't have been foreign in the movie series. I wish they adopted the quick clones into the movies.

But as for the new Star Wars cartoons... simple. Those are better because George has no control over them, and they've gone to bright young writers that want to expand on the groundwork of lost potential of the prequels. If only George collaborated with that kind of fresh vision, the prequels would have been much better than they were.

And they could have kept the Birthday Party sequence in. That was great.

Click to expand...

Yup, even though it hilariously dates the movie ("Aw I thought it was going to be He-Man!") Lol.

But as for the new Star Wars cartoons... simple. Those are better because George has no control over them, and they've gone to bright young writers that want to expand on the groundwork of lost potential of the prequels. If only George collaborated with that kind of fresh vision, the prequels would have been much better than they were.

Click to expand...

All I have to say is the cartoons made me care about Darth Maul, and that alone is incredible!

Yup, even though it hilariously dates the movie ("Aw I thought it was going to be He-Man!") Lol.[/quote]

By the time the film came out, He-Man was old hat. But I have NO doubt in my mind it was a jab at Filmation for the whole naming debacle.

All I have to say is the cartoons made me care about Darth Maul, and that alone is incredible!

Click to expand...

Darth Maul is wasted potential. He had the potential to be an amazing character and a downright nasty villain, but George figured spending forever in the Naspod racing champeenship was a better way to blow the movie. That's all I'm saying about that.

Darth Maul is wasted potential. He had the potential to be an amazing character and a downright nasty villain, but George figured spending forever in the Naspod racing champeenship was a better way to blow the movie. That's all I'm saying about that.

Click to expand...

I do think we're seeing the beginning of the end of the movie moguls, at least whatever respect they once had. In recent years people like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and James Cameron have opted for the style over substance model or the "let's destroy whatever good we created just to make it look modern" model. They don't deserve the respect they once had and perhaps they never should have gotten that sort of god like worship to begin with. You need people to tell you when you're wrong and I doubt they've heard that in a very long time.

The reason why the first Star Wars films were great (and this has been proven by the writers of the Cracked web site) was that George collaborated with other people and just took all the credit. The prequels were all George, so that speaks volumes.

But the older visionaries get, the less vision they have and the more perfectionist they become. All great directors fall into this eventually. They get stuck in the same routine, making the same movies... they become so important they refuse to bounce ideas off of anyone else and only want yes men... it happens. That explains Tim Burton casting Johnny Depp in all of his movies.

But enough of that.

I'm going to say this... I'm pretty disappointed Pirates: Band of Misfits didn't do too well. The animation alone was worth seeing it in 3-D. Sure, it wasn't Wallace and Grommit writing quality, but it still was a funny well written project. A tiny bit pop cultury, but not along the lines of a Shrek film. And it really stinks there was no promotional tie ins, which helped hide the film from the public. They would have done wonders at BK or something, some merchandise (even though TRU was burned badly by Arthur Christmas).

The reason why the first Star Wars films were great (and this has been proven by the writers of the Cracked web site) was that George collaborated with other people and just took all the credit.

Click to expand...

And we the audience are very quick to swallow that kind of nonsense. We romanticize one person and don't want to hear about how important the whole team is. We are as much responsible for the prequels as Lucas is.

But the older visionaries get, the less vision they have and the more perfectionist they become. All great directors fall into this eventually. They get stuck in the same routine, making the same movies

Click to expand...

It's unreasonable and unrealistic to think even talented creators can keep churning out great projects forever. But Hollywood will suck these things dry for every last buck. Again I think the fans own some responsibility for the prequels.

I can't stand how the authors of such articles sensationalize the facts beyond reason. Here we go with today's crop of entertainment's yellow journalism:

Men in Black 3 Steals No. 1 Box Office Spot from The Avengers

Memorial Day Box Office: 'Men in Black 3' Soft in U.S.

'MIB 3' Beats 'Avengers' With Solid Memorial Debut

'Men in Black' sequel powers past 'Avengers'

"The Avengers" is on its way to pass the last Harry Potter movie and becoming the 3rd largest grossing picture worldwide behind "Avatar" and "Titanic," but you wouldn't know that from these headlines or the articles. "The Avengers" has been out for nearly a month! Of course it wasn't going to maintain the number one spot forever. Nobody "stole" anything from them. And how can MIB3 "power past" that film and still open "soft" in America? I understand what they're saying, but it's twisted for the sake of sensationalism.

Something far more interesting is being lost here too - the fact that American films seem to be far more popular overseas than they are on our own soil. This is something new. The industry understands it. That's why half of "Iron Man 3" is being financed by interests in China! Will that create a precedent? Personally I don't much care, but a lot audience members would and it's a legitimate story. A very interesting one.

So, MIB3 reportedly cost $375 Million to make and market. Not all of this is seen on screen. There were countless costly production delays! It's worldwide estimate is $203 million. It'll be okay. MIB3 isn't quite a runaway hit, but it's an admirable success considering that most sequels crumble by this point and it could have easily gone the other way.

Quick, name 3 (non-actor) male film directors. Pretty easy, huh? Now do the same for female film directors. It’s 2012! Why is that still so difficult?

Sure, it's possible but not easy. I mean, it takes a minute and the first ones that come to my mind are Penny Marshall, Jodi Foster and Barbra Streisand. When I first think of male directors, none of them are actors and dozens come very quickly. I studied film so I can name several women in film. Not quickly. That is sad. <---angry piggy

Quick, name 3 (non-actor) male film directors. Pretty easy, huh? Now do the same for female film directors. It’s 2012! Why is that still so difficult?

Click to expand...

We are still so behind in some ways. But, and forgive me males, when guys get together they do tend to form a pack in which it's very difficult for women to break in.

Not that women don't share some of the blame. It reminds me of High School when all the boys wanted to be filmmakers and the girls just wanted to act their movies. Girls aren't raised to have that kind of ambition.

But either way, I also think we romanticize the role of the director far too much. Without the writers the director would be sitting on an empty set with nowhere to go.

I can't stand how the authors of such articles sensationalize the facts beyond reason. Here we go with today's crop of entertainment's yellow journalism:

Men in Black 3 Steals No. 1 Box Office Spot from The Avengers

Memorial Day Box Office: 'Men in Black 3' Soft in U.S.

'MIB 3' Beats 'Avengers' With Solid Memorial Debut

'Men in Black' sequel powers past 'Avengers'

"The Avengers" is on its way to pass the last Harry Potter movie and becoming the 3rd largest grossing picture worldwide behind "Avatar" and "Titanic," but you wouldn't know that from these headlines or the articles. "The Avengers" has been out for nearly a month! Of course it wasn't going to maintain the number one spot forever. Nobody "stole" anything from them. And how can MIB3 "power past" that film and still open "soft" in America? I understand what they're saying, but it's twisted for the sake of sensationalism.

Something far more interesting is being lost here too - the fact that American films seem to be far more popular overseas than they are on our own soil. This is something new. The industry understands it. That's why half of "Iron Man 3" is being financed by interests in China! Will that create a precedent? Personally I don't much care, but a lot audience members would and it's a legitimate story. A very interesting one.

So, MIB3 reportedly cost $375 Million to make and market. Not all of this is seen on screen. There were countless costly production delays! It's worldwide estimate is $203 million. It'll be okay. MIB3 isn't quite a runaway hit, but it's an admirable success considering that most sequels crumble by this point and it could have easily gone the other way.

Click to expand...

I hate the way they condense that sort of news for the masses that don't understand how things run. I mean, believe me. A Top Spot opening doesn't always mean runaway success. I've seen movies that manage to completely flop after the first week.

The only reason something didn't "dethrone" Avengers before that was because there was nothing worthy to dethrone it. People are still seeing Avengers, but now we finally have a film that people actually want to see, even though it's a mild number of them. Battleship, while it's unfortunately getting its due overseas, was such a disaster, Hasbro and Paramount pulled G.I. Joe 2 until next March to make it 3-D.

Also, I wonder when the family films are going to start to affect the box office draws of these larger action based movies. The last family movie, Pirates, came and went with much notice... Madagascar 3, the season's first PG CGI film comes out Friday of Next week. It's strange that no family films have came out in May.

Still... I can't believe that Iron Man even needs foreign funding. The first 2 movies and Avengers have proven strong. Marvel's characters have never been more profitable, Disney has their hand in the pie as well. Heck, the Avengers merchandising take alone could fund China's half.

Me and my mom finally saw Dark Shadows this weekend. My thoughts are, it was really good at times. But then again, I thought it could really stupid at times too.

My mother's thoughts were, "It's not like the old show. But still enjoyable".

I'm too young to know Dark Shadows. I've only tried to watch one episode a longtime ago and I knew it was like a soap. During and before seeing this movie. I have been only hearing bits and bits from my mother's memory.